Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Guidelines And Best Practices For Implementing The 2015 Discovery Amendments Concerning Proportionality (Second Edition), Bolch Judicial Institute
Guidelines And Best Practices For Implementing The 2015 Discovery Amendments Concerning Proportionality (Second Edition), Bolch Judicial Institute
Bolch Judicial Institute Publications
In November 2014, the Duke Law Judicial Studies Center, which became the Bolch Judicial Institute in 2018, held a conference on the discovery proportionality amendments with more than 70 practitioners and 15 federal judges. Drafting teams were subsequently formed, consisting of 32 practitioners, who worked for nine months on an initial draft set of GUIDELINES AND PRACTICES prepared by Judge Lee Rosenthal and Prof. Steven Gensler. The team’s work product, the GUIDELINES AND PRACTICES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE 2015 DISCOVERY AMENDMENTS TO ACHIEVE PROPORTIONALITY, was published in 99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, along with several related articles.
Most of …
Rwu First Amendment Blog: David Logan's Blog: Discovering Trump 06-22-2018, David A. Logan
Rwu First Amendment Blog: David Logan's Blog: Discovering Trump 06-22-2018, David A. Logan
Law School Blogs
No abstract provided.
Aligning Incentives And Cost Allocation In Discovery, Jonathan R. Nash, Joanna M. Shepherd
Aligning Incentives And Cost Allocation In Discovery, Jonathan R. Nash, Joanna M. Shepherd
Faculty Articles
Recent proposals to revise Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 to incorporate cost allocation of discovery have sparked considerable controversy. Advocates for reform argue that replacing the long-standing “producer-pays” presumption with something more akin to a “requester-pays” rule would better align economic incentives and reduce litigants’ ability to wield discovery as an instrument to force settlement. Opponents argue that such a reform would limit access to justice by saddling requesters with an ex ante burden of funding the opposition’s discovery.
In this Article, we explain that either a rule requiring both parties to share the costs of discovery (“cost-sharing rule”) …
Opting Out Of Discovery, Jay Tidmarsh
Opting Out Of Discovery, Jay Tidmarsh
Journal Articles
This Article proposes a system in which both parties are provided an opportunity to opt out of discovery. A party who opts out is immunized from dispositive motions, including a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or a motion for summary judgment. If neither party opts out of discovery, the parties waive jury-trial rights, thus giving judges the ability to use stronger case-management powers to focus the issues and narrow discovery. If one party opts out of discovery but an opponent does not, the cost of discovery shifts to the opponent. This Article justifies this proposal in …
Bespoke Discovery, Jessica Erickson
Bespoke Discovery, Jessica Erickson
Law Faculty Publications
The U.S. legal system gives contracting parties significant freedom to customize the procedures that will govern their future disputes. With forum selection clauses, parties can decide where they will litigate future disputes. With fee-shifting provisions, they can choose who will pay for these suits. And with arbitration clauses, they can make upfront decisions to opt out of the traditional legal system altogether. Parties can also waive their right to appeal, their right to a jury trial, and their right to file a class action. Bespoke procedure, in other words, is commonplace in the United States.
Far less common, however, are …
The Narrative Of Costs, The Cost Of Narrative, Alexander A. Reinert
The Narrative Of Costs, The Cost Of Narrative, Alexander A. Reinert
Articles
In Judge Victor Marrero’s Article “The Cost of Rules, the Rule of Costs,” he argues that too many lawyers use too many procedural devices to cause too much inefficiency within our civil justice system. His Article helpfully asks us to focus on the role of the lawyer and law firm economics in assessing how to solve waste and abuse in civil litigation. He proposes an array of procedural changes to address these perceived problems. In this response, I argue that Judge Marrero’s assertions about costs are questionable, given relevant empirical evidence. Moreover, although I am confident that there are instances …